Standing Committee F

[Mr. George Stevenson in the Chair]

Hunting Bill

Clause 8 - Tests for registration: utility and

Amendment proposed [16 January]: No. 185, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 16, after 'birds', insert 'or wild birds'.—[Alun Michael]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

George Stevenson: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
 Amendment No. 18, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 17, at end insert 'or ground nesting birds'.
 Amendment No. 19, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 25, at end insert— 
 '( ) pets and domestic animals'.
 Amendment No. 20, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 25, at end insert 
 'or 
 ( ) will contribute towards— 
 ( ) the sustainable management of the quarry species; 
 ( ) the enjoyment of sport and recreation; 
 ( ) the preservation of the landscape; 
 ( ) the rural economy; 
 ( ) vermin control; 
 ( ) habitat protection; 
 ( ) the sustainable development of the area (within the meaning of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992); 
 ( ) the interests of avoiding or preventing the spread of disease; or 
 ( ) is for the purposes of obtaining food for animal or human consumption.'.
 Amendment No. 110, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 25, at end insert 
 'or will contribute towards the control of nuisance animals'.
 Amendment No. 111, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 25, at end insert 
 'or will contribute towards the maintenance of social and cultural cohesion of the area'.
 Amendment No. 112, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 25, at end insert 
 'or will contribute towards the provision of a service for the collection of dead, injured, ill and surplus livestock from farms in the area'.
 Amendment No. 113, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 25, at end insert 
 'or 
 ( ) will contribute towards— 
 ( ) the sustainable management of the quarry species; 
 ( ) the enjoyment of sport and recreation; 
 ( ) the preservation of the landscape; 
 ( ) vermin control; 
 ( ) habitat protection; 
 ( ) the sustainable development of the area (within the meaning of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992); 
 ( ) the interests of avoiding or preventing the spread of disease; or 
 ( ) is for the purposes of obtaining food for animal or human consumption.'.
 Amendment No. 115, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 25, at end insert 
 'or 
 ( ) for the purpose of obtaining meat for human or animal consumption.'.

Peter Luff: May I say what a pleasure it is to have a rare moment of agreement with the Government? I believe that I can, without fear of contradiction, support Government amendment No. 185, which is a welcome change.
 I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) cannot be with us today as he has important business on the Northern Ireland portfolio for his party. That is a shame because this group of amendments and this part of the clause are probably the most important in the whole Bill for the Middle Way Group. I shall miss his absence—I mean his presence—very much. [Interruption.] I sometimes miss my hon. Friend's absence also. 
 It is sad that the Committee is today debating the utility of the way in which we kill 26,000 foxes—not whether we kill them—on the same day that, by curious symmetry, the House is discussing sending 26,000 additional troops to the Gulf. That reveals very clearly the Government's strange sense of priorities. 
 The utility test and amendments Nos. 110 to 113 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire are important because we believe that the Government have drawn the utility test much too tightly and much more tightly than they suggested during the consultation process. That is a serious breach of faith by the Government.

Alun Michael: If the hon. Gentleman is going to use such language, may I remind him that I said at the beginning of the consultation process that I would try to provide the opportunity for every point of view to be made and would draw the issues to be discussed as widely as possible? I was specific about that at the beginning of the consultation process. The narrowing down of a variety of definitions resulted from listening to the evidence and discussion throughout the process.

Peter Luff: That is a fascinating interpretation of what happened. Amendments Nos. 113 and 20 would correct the Minister's mistakes in his interpretation of what happened at Portcullis house. I remind the Minister that the purpose of the amendments that we are discussing is to ensure a full and proper definition of utility. In that now infamous letter of 10 April 2002 the Minister said:
'' 'Utility' addresses the need for particular activities, particularly the work of land and wildlife managers. It might be described as the need or usefulness of an activity for vermin control, wildlife management, habitat protection or land management and conservation.''
 Part of the Portcullis house hearing on utility was devoted to the broad impact of hunting on the management and conservation of the natural habitat of wildlife and the management and control of quarry species. We heard nothing that day to suggest that the Minister's original definition was not correct. In fact, the hearings confirmed the correctness of his initial judgment. I would be fascinated to hear during his very important reply to the debate what evidence led him to change his interpretation of the definition, because I listened carefully at the hearings but heard nothing other than confirmation of his original interpretation, with which I thought we were working. 
 I do not want to labour the point, Mr. Stevenson, because you will call me to order if I do. The amendments are important because we must ensure that the utility test is appropriately drawn in case it is applied in future to other activities involving animals. I shall not labour the point, as we had a long debate on the subject on, I believe, the first day of the hearing, but I remind the Minister that John Bryant, the former chief executive of the League Against Cruel Sports, said on BBC Radio 4's ''The Moral Maze'' on 9 March 2002: 
''I am sure angling causes unnecessary suffering and so does shooting.''
 When asked whether he would ban such activities, he replied with an illogical and unprincipled argument: 
''No, I reserve my call for bans for issues where in the British democracy we have won our argument with the people; we have won it with the politicians and what's more we have persuaded the politicians that it is an important enough issue to be worthy of legislation.''
 As we know, he has not won the argument with the people. They do not support the Bill. 
 The Middle Way Group welcomes the fact that the tests will apply at national, not regional, level. We shall debate later whether a situation in which an activity is legal in one area but illegal in the next is not unprincipled, unworkable and impossible to police, but at present we are debating the requirement under the utility test to show that hunting with dogs 
''is likely to make a significant contribution to the prevention or reduction of serious damage''
 to a narrowly defined list of interests. 
 We must ask exactly how a hunt is to show that it will make such a contribution and how the contribution will be measured. Surely, a judgment can be made only if the other methods used, their success rate and the condition of the quarry animal population in the area are also taken into account. 
 I refer the Minister and the Committee to the very interesting letter that I believe we all received from Mr. Smith-Ryland, who is associated with the Warwickshire hunt—I am not sure in what capacity. [Hon. Members: ''Former master.''] He is a former master of the hunt.

Edward Garnier: I believe that he continues to be a joint master, but I may be wrong.

Peter Luff: Clearly, the relationship is intimate, whatever it is or was. His very helpful letter explains exactly what utility the Warwickshire hunt provides in the country over which it hunts:
''Lord Burns did not mention that the only activities that farmers never charge for are shooting rabbits and pigeons, hunting foxes and of course access for walking under the legislation. At least 90% of farmers give access for hunting foxes for utility, only 10% on average follow the sport.
The Warwickshire Hunt have access over 1,000 farms covering 70,000 hectares. Twelve farmers effectively ban the hounds (only four have over 100 acres) and sixteen farmers discourage or ban horses while accepting hounds for dispersal and culling foxes. Access given for hunting, free of charge, covers over 99% of the rural land area.
Between 15–20% of the 1,000 farmers cull foxes by shooting over and above the culling undertaken by the Hunt. In counties such as Hampshire or Norfolk where game birds are heavily protected between 60–90% of farmers would allow shooting of foxes. In the Warwickshire Hunt there are 96 shoots but only 7 professional gamekeepers.''
 Mr. Smith-Ryland's important conclusion is that 
''on 80% of the farms management of the fox population at present is undertaken solely through dispersal and culling by hounds.''
 On another subject, he concludes: 
''There would be no welfare gain for the fox if hunting with dogs is banned in lowland England.''

Nicholas Soames: My hon. Friend is touching on a very important matter, which leads to a point that I have raised on many occasions about management of the countryside, conservation and retaining a proper balance in the countryside, and how hunting and the work of keepers assist in such aims. There would be a disaster if one part of the equation were removed.

Peter Luff: I agree with my hon. Friend, but I must repeat something that I said earlier in the Committee's proceedings. The hunting fraternity did itself no service by claiming that it was entirely a pest control service. It created that impression early in the debate about the future of foxhunting and that particular claim has come back to haunt it. The claim was false because hunters misunderstood their role in the countryside. If they had defined themselves more accurately, we would not have the level of misunderstanding that is demonstrated by Government Members today.
 I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the need to test utility as wildlife management. I was out shooting in the Christmas holidays on land hunted by the Warwickshire hunt and we drove pheasants back into a wood that was owned by that hunt. It turns out that the wood is kept, as a management practice, for the purpose of keeping cover for foxes. It is also a perfect reserve for nightingales; indeed, it is one of the best reserves for nightingales in the country. Were hunting to be banned, the reserve would be managed in a completely different manner and the nightingales would disappear. 
 The term ''wildlife management'' has to be thoroughly and properly incorporated in the Bill. Wildlife management should mean suppressing a population level to an acceptable degree; it should 
 not mean killing as many individuals as possible, which is what the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) conceded that his phrase ''pest control'' was intended to mean. Wildlife management must mean maintaining the population at a certain appropriate level for the countryside in question and efficiency cannot be measured in terms of the numbers culled. In some cases, hunting with dogs can result in a low figure, yet can still be the best method. 
 During the hearings at Portcullis house in September, there was significant agreement among all parties that the motive behind an action was, in the main, irrelevant and that the suffering of the animal was paramount. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with including recreation and amenity in the definition of utility, as the amendments would do. I shall talk about that at greater length later. The protection of game birds is seen as a relevant reason to justify utility and yet game birds are shot primarily for recreation—although when I shoot birds, I also eat them. The Bill also allows for the use of birds of prey to hunt wild mammals for sport. Those are hypocritical elements that the Minister has completely failed to justify and they highlight the danger of the Bill leading to other legislation. That is why we are right to want the amendments to be agreed. 
 Dr. Wise has written an interesting paper that is widely available. He states: 
''The Government's presumption that it is wrong to take the lives of wild animals for recreation or entertainment is inconsistent with its declared commitment not to interfere with other field sports.''
 That is why including recreation is so important. The paper continues: 
''Hunters have a vested interest in maintaining a healthy population of quarry species in their habitat, and selectively kill''—
 this is something that Labour members of the Committee have not properly understood yet— 
''weak and damaged animals as well as providing a self-financing wildlife management system. It is also impossible to legislate as to where recreation begins and ends. A gamekeeper controlling foxes with a terrier will, quite reasonably, obtain pleasure from a job of work well done. The recreational benefit of hunting to its followers finances the job of management thus enabling the 'control' benefit to be free to farmers. And unsurprisingly the ratio of 'sport' to 'work' will vary not only from region to region, but also according to a range of other factors like weather and time of year.''
 Labour members of the Committee sometimes define hunting in a narrow straitjacket and one cannot do that. It has different roles and purposes in different parts of the country. 
 The test of utility is too narrowly drawn. The Burns report found that hunting often provides an economic contribution. That is a subject on which the Middle Way Group is somewhat distant from the Countryside Alliance—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) is showing that he has not listened to what the Middle Way Group has been arguing for the past five years. That does not surprise me in the slightest. Stanley Kubrick's last film was ''Eyes Wide Shut''; as far as Labour are concerned, it should be ''Ears Wide Closed''. If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully to what we have been saying, he would understand that there are important points of distinction; they will come out again in the clause 
 stand part debate, so perhaps he would like to hang around and listen. 
 The economic contribution is a dangerous argument. Some things in the countryside are uniquely done by hunting and those are the things that the Middle Way Group wants to add to the test of utility. Frankly, there are some things that could be done by other means. We do not believe that hunting is cruel, if practised in accordance with the codes of conduct. It has not always been practised in that way and that is one of the areas that the Middle Way Group has highlighted as a problem. 
 It is difficult to argue that jobs justify everything. I often say that bringing back capital punishment in public would generate an awful lot of jobs—people would queue up to buy tickets—but I am not sure that it would be an honourable way to create employment. It is difficult for the hunting lobby to put the economic test forward because if hunting is cruel one cannot justify the jobs it creates, and if it is not cruel the economic test does not matter. 
 Amendment No. 110 differs in one important respect from amendment No. 20. It misses out the economic argument, which is a weak justification for hunting in the countryside. That is not to show a lack of concern for those people—many of my friends will lose their jobs if hunting is banned. I am concerned about them, but we do not need to use that argument to justify hunting. Jobs associated with hunting are not unique and there are plenty of other sources of employment in the countryside. 
 Along with the other matters in amendments Nos. 110 to 113, social value and cultural cohesion are unique issues associated with hunting.

Hugo Swire: I take on board what my hon. Friend says and am inclined to agree with him. For the record, however, does he agree that if hunting were replaced by drag hunting many jobs, which would not be re-created, would disappear and the ancillary jobs would disappear for ever?

Peter Luff: My hon. Friend is right. In an emotional sense, I would mourn the loss of those jobs. However, I repeat that job creation is not a justification for an activity that is inherently right or wrong. If an activity is wrong, one should not use job creation to justify it, if it is right, job creation is an added benefit.

James Gray: I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend. If what he says is true, it would equally apply to cultural and social cohesion, which are topics addressed by one of his amendments. Surely the point about hunting is that social and cultural cohesion, job creation and pest control are holistic.

Peter Luff: When we divide on amendment No. 20, I may vote for it because I doubt that Mr. Stevenson will also call amendment No. 110 for a Division. The other things that we want to add to the utility test are unique to hunting, and losing hunting would mean that they could not be replaced. Even in my constituency, which is not a remote rural area, the social activity around hunting is considerable. In remote rural areas, it is greater still. That social
 activity would be lost for ever and wildlife would suffer irrevocably if hunting were banned. Hunting has unique features, which would be lost for ever if it were banned. We could find a way to deal with the jobs problem, which is a weak argument. There is a difference between my hon. Friends and me, but it is not excessive.
 We have talked a lot about control. Many facts and figures on wildlife management, the role of hunting in controlling foxes and the level of predation caused by foxes have been bandied around. The Minister has claimed that losses are minimal, and some Government Members have claimed that control is not required. If only 2 per cent. of lambs are lost to fox predation at present, which would be significant for some farmers, it is a tribute to the network of control activities in place in the countryside at present. That figure is a product of the current system of control. The fact that losses are relatively low—on some marginal farms 2 per cent. would be quite a lot and on some upland farms the figure is a great deal higher—is a tribute to what is being achieved at present. 
 The Burns report states: 
''foxes kill a substantial number of game birds, both wild and hand-reared. Hand-reared pheasants are particularly vulnerable when they are released from their rearing pens. In the absence of fox control a substantial number of birds would be lost before the start of the shooting season.''
 On 18 October 2001, which is after the foot and mouth disease outbreak, the Farmers Union of Wales stated in a latter to the Federation of Welsh Packs: 
''All counties in Wales have reported an increase in fox numbers and predation since the hunting authorities commenced their voluntary ban on 22 February 2001 . . . The Union's County Branches are receiving an increasing number of calls from farmers concerned at the effects of a protracted ban on fox control during the autumn period.''
 The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food submission to the Burns inquiry stated that 
''approximately 75,000 foxes are killed each year by all forms of hunting that involve the use of dogs . . . If there was any reduction in fox control using dogs, this would have to be compensated by an increase in other methods of control to ensure no increase in local fox numbers.''
 The National Farmers Union told the Burns inquiry: 
''We have concluded that any further reduction in the range of techniques available would seriously compromise farmers' ability to control agricultural pests effectively and would jeopardise effective management of farm holdings.''
 The National Gamekeepers Organisation told the Burns inquiry: 
''The Committee should also remember, when it is looking for evidence of damage to man's interests by pests, that it is doing so in a country where these pest species are already controlled.''
 The Country Land and Business Association's submission said that 
''There is no doubt that the existence of hunting for the purpose of control rather than eradication means that the health population of foxes remains by virtue of the fact that it is a selective method of control.''
 In July 2001, the Rural Development Committee of the Scottish Parliament said: 
''The Committee concluded that there was overwhelming evidence of the need to control both the total fox population and individual animals which are known to be taking stock.''
 There is considerable evidence that hunting has utility in terms of the control of foxes. The definition in the Bill will reduce significantly the ability of hunting to play that part, and probably end it in many parts of the country. 
 Let us consider the question of sustainable management of the quarry species, which the amendments would include in the utility test. Lord Burns told the House of Lords: 
''If hunting were subject to a ban, I have little doubt that at least an equivalent number of foxes, deer and hares would be killed by other means. The number of deaths is not likely to be reduced by banning hunting.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 March 2001; Vol. 623, c. 532.]
 The Burns report concluded that 
''Farmers (and landowners) are at the heart of this activity. As a group, they are clearly in favour of hunting.''
 It also stated that 
''some farmers tolerate foxes because of their own support for hunting.''
 Graham Sirl, formerly head of the west country operations for the League Against Cruel Sports wrote to the local newspaper in 2001. He said: 
''Over the years, and many meetings with landowners and others, I have come to the conclusion that in the event of a total hunt ban, the deer population will be decimated. This view is shared by many, including some who remain independent on the hunting issue . . . Greater protection is needed for the quarry species, therefore prior to, or following a ban, amendments must be made to the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1986. Failure to bring in such protection will inevitably lead to an increase in activities such as fox, deer and hare drives. This will be nothing short of unmanaged, indiscriminate slaughter.''

Adrian Flook: I just want to point out that Graham Sirl was not only the head of the League Against Cruel Sports, but the man responsible for the so-called deer preserve at Baronsdown, which came up in debate on Thursday.

Peter Luff: I am grateful for that explanation of exactly how important Mr. Sirl's view is to the Committee. We should listen to it very carefully. Unless the utility clause is widened in line with the amendments, Mr. Sirl's conclusion—that there will nothing short of unmanaged, indiscriminate slaughter—is one that should weigh very heavily on Government Members as they reflect on how to cast their votes.
 I turn to the question of sport and recreation. I have changed my mind on the issue, and it was the Portcullis house hearings that changed my mind. Although people enjoy hunting—there is no doubt about that—I was not convinced until those hearings that recreation was legitimate for inclusion in the utility test. I have now concluded that it is appropriate to include it. If hunting were cruel, it would not be a legitimate reason; as it is not, it should be included in the utility test. Hunting cannot be cruel, because it has to pass the cruelty test elsewhere in the clause. If something is not cruel, why not do it? 
 We do many things that are not necessarily in our best interests. Occasionally I see the Minister in Strangers Bar, drinking beer. That is not the most utilitarian way of getting liquid. He would be better off drinking water, or a cup of tea, in the Tea Room. However, he has a right to enjoy himself. He does himself a little harm in the process, but I do not begrudge him that. Recreation is an important part of human existence. 
 Going to the cinema is probably not such a useful way of spending one's time as reading a good book, but we should defend it. People in a free society have a right to enjoy themselves, unless they inflict harm on others in the process. If hunting is not cruel, people have a right to enjoy it. Recreation should be included in the tests set out in the Bill.

Rob Marris: The tests put forward by the hon. Gentleman in amendment No. 113 are disjunctive. He said that there was no doubt that people enjoy hunting. Therefore, upon application, all someone has to say to the registrar is, ''I and my colleagues in this group registration enjoy hunting'', and that application must, according to the wording of his amendment, be passed under the utility test by the registrar. The registrar will have no alternative but to pass the application because the alternatives set out in amendment No. 113 are disjunctive. Is that the amendment's intention?

Peter Luff: I am not entirely sure that that is right. That is one of the factors that the registrar must bear in mind. There may be a case for creating a second category of test—I would like to consider that on Report—which would be that the registrar should bear in mind certain tests. I agree that that is another possibility, but we should bear in mind that the registered activity will also have to pass the cruelty test. If it is not cruel, what is the problem? That is my philosophical position. Even if what the hon. Gentleman said is correct, why is it wrong? If something is not cruel and does not have an adverse impact—out of proportion to the activity itself—on someone or something else, why not let people do it?
 That is probably why David Hockney joined the countryside march. He referred to the bossiness of people who presumed to tell others what they could do with their lives. That characterises so much of what the Government do. That bossiness lies at the heart of our concern with the utility test. People are being told how to run their lives, although the consequences of not doing so are not adverse on the quarry species or on the rest of us. That liberty issue is our philosophic concern. People have a right to enjoy themselves unless they harm others. 
 Labour Members say that those people can enjoy themselves in other ways, such as drag hunting. I am sorry, but to say that is to misread the Burns report, which says: 
''It is unlikely that either drag and bloodhound hunting or drag coursing would of themselves mitigate to any substantial extent any adverse effects on the rural economy or the social life of the countryside arising from a ban on hunting.''
 The Burns inquiry mentioned recreation and social interaction. Paragraph 4.14 says: 
''We do not underestimate the importance, for those who take part, of the opportunities for social interaction provided by hunting.''
 Paragraph 4.10 says: 
''Organised hunting is therefore an intricate and complex social activity which is intricately linked to other features of rural life and which rests on a foundation of overlapping mutual interests, with the farmer/landowner at the hub.''
 Amenity might, perhaps, be a better word than recreation. Perhaps we should have said ''recreation and amenity'' in our amendment. That is taken up by the International League for the Protection of Horses. Its submission to the Burns inquiry said: 
''Were hunting abolished, a number of people would undoubtedly continue to ride; however, almost certainly a proportion of those who hunt would give up riding and sell their horses. Even if only 10 per cent. gave up, there would be a flood of horses on to the open market. The consequent drop in the value of equines would threaten their welfare.''
 That is because hunting, as I have said before, involves what is probably the largest voluntary access agreement in the country. If we take it away, large areas of countryside over which horses currently ride will not be available and horses will be driven on to public highways, with very serious consequences for public safety. Putting a definition of recreation or amenity in the Bill, as the amendments seek to do, is tremendously important. 
 The Kennel Club—which has, I remind the Committee, now come out against a ban on hunting with hounds—concluded in a press release on 9 April 2001: 
''At a recent meeting of the General Committee of the Kennel Club, the implications of the Hunting Bill were discussed. It was noted that the Government Hunting Bill of 2000/2001 in its current form, could have a severe effect not only on hunting hounds and terriers, but on all dogs and dog owners. Furthermore, it could signal the end of Field Trials.''
 Unless we include a definition of recreational utility in the Bill—understanding that concept to include amenity—there is a real risk that an important door open to people in the countryside who want to enjoy themselves will be closed, without any corresponding gain in animal welfare, because the animals that would have been killed will be killed by alternative means, and probably in larger numbers. I repeat that the hunting hearings in September established agreement that the motive of an activity was secondary to the welfare of the animal and that recreation was an acceptable concept. 
 I have already mentioned the thousands of horses that would be at risk. The National Equine Welfare Council has said in a document whose date, I am afraid, I do not know: 
''A ban on hunting could lead to a collapse in the economic value of 'quality hunters'. The high cost of keeping horses in livery yards means that most unwanted hunters would be sold quickly at a low price. Less dedicated owners would be able to buy quality horses for less money resulting in higher numbers of lower quality and value horses being unwanted and possibly neglected.''
 It goes on to mention concerns for young stock and a whole range of other concerns. That council is a very reputable body on horse issues. 
 The Association of British Dogs and Cats Homes has a concern, which would be a further consequence 
 of not widening the utility clause to include a definition of recreation and amenity. That association includes a wide range of organisations, such as Battersea dogs home, the Blue Cross, Birmingham dogs home, the Kennel Club, Manchester and District home for lost dogs, the National Animal Welfare Trust and the RSPCA. It says: 
''The Association's consensus view is that being an organisation concerned with the welfare of dogs and cats, it has a concern over the future of any redundant hounds should hunting with hounds be banned. It would wish any debate to recognise this as a serious issue. In the event of a ban, the primary responsibility for the welfare of redundant hounds lies with the hunts. The Association considers that hounds and dogs currently employed with hunts would be almost impossible to rehome and that euthanasia would be an unacceptable alternative.''
 The RSPCA has put its name to that view. Unless we widen the definition of utility in the way suggested in the amendments, that would be one of the Bill's unwanted consequences.

Rob Marris: Have I just understood the hon. Gentleman to say that were hunting to be banned, there would be quite a lot of euthanasia of hunting dogs? That seems a strange argument from someone who is advancing the proposition that people who hunt have animal welfare rights at heart. Is not that a contradiction?

Peter Luff: Perhaps I am not fully engaged at this early hour. I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Were hunting to be banned, my concern is that all those dogs that the RSPCA has sometimes claimed could be rehomed would not be. They would have to be put down in large numbers.

Rob Marris: So hunters are not concerned with animal welfare.

Peter Luff: Let the record show that, from a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman said that hunters were not interested in animal welfare. They are; that is why they want hunting to continue. They know that nothing can be done with those dogs if hunting is banned. They will have no utility. They are not domesticated. They cannot sleep in one's kitchen. They are lovely dogs—

Nicholas Soames: Hounds.

Peter Luff: They are hounds. The hounds are lovely dogs. I have never been quite sure of the difference between hounds and dogs. I am sure that my hon. Friend will intervene shortly to define the precise difference.

Michael Foster: All hounds are dogs but not all dogs are hounds.

Peter Luff: I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Worcester.

Mike Hall: Will the hon. Gentleman advise the Committee on the average age of a foxhound?

Peter Luff: Could I answer the previous point first? I will then take that point because I know the point that the hon. Gentleman is making.
 The dogs cannot be rehomed. What will happen to them? Who will pay for their food? Who will maintain those dogs? Is the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) offering to put his hand in his pocket and pay for the maintenance for every pack of foxhounds and beagles? There are 26,000 of them. I am sure that his help will be very welcome to the animal charities. The dogs can live in animal welfare sanctuaries for the rest of their lives, but they cannot be rehomed. Battersea dogs home and other such organisations will have to take the burden on their shoulders. 
 Labour Members are suggesting that, towards the end of their working lives, the dogs are typically shot. They are pack animals; when they cannot go hunting they are miserable. They cannot be rehomed. The Committee will disagree about the following point, but those who hunt love those dogs. If a dog that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale owned were too ill to continue an active life, it would be considered good practice by vets to put the dog down.

Mike Hall: What is the average age of those dogs?

Peter Luff: Six, seven or eight. I cannot remember.

Nicholas Soames: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. Hounds, which are not dogs, are put down when they can no longer hunt. It would be impossible to keep hounds beyond their working age. Furthermore, it would be extremely unkind to the hound to keep it on if it cannot hunt. That is a perfectly sensible, normal thing to do with all working dogs when they come to the end of their working lives.

Tony Banks: Perhaps we should start shooting pensioners.

Peter Luff: The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) suggests shooting pensioners. That is an interesting new Labour policy, but it would not be embraced too warmly. We see the lack of understanding of Government Members—[Interruption.] Labour Members may say, ''Here we go again'', but that is the point. That is the problem with the debate. It is a dialogue with people who do not properly understand the issues involved.

Rob Marris: We do understand. We disagree.

Peter Luff: It is not that Labour Members disagree; they do not understand. The huntsman loves his hounds, and killing them gives him no pleasure at all, but he knows that the alternative is worse. They have had a full, active and wonderful life. If the hon. Member for Weaver Vale can think of another use for them that would make the dogs happy, contented and fulfilled dogs—hounds—I am happy to receive his suggestion. [Interruption.] We are probably going a bit wide of the utility test, Mr. Stevenson. [Interruption.]

George Stevenson: Order. The Committee will make more progress if we allow the hon. Gentleman to make his case.
Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal) rose—

Peter Luff: I shall give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer).

John Gummer: My hon. Friend has put forward detailed information and quotations from those who have an intimate knowledge of the countryside. While
 doing so, I wonder whether he noticed that hardly a movement could be seen on the Government Benches. The moment that he got on to the sentimental approach to dogs, hounds or whatever, Government Members became animated. The Labour party cares not at all for factual information about the countryside, but the moment there is a bit of sentiment about dogs, they are up, one and all.

Mike Hall: That was devastating.

Peter Luff: I regard my right hon. Friend's argument as devastating because hard fact, calm analysis and logic have no place in the minds of Government Members, whose view is dominated by misplaced, misguided sentiment. They are trying to tighten the utility test because they are anxious to ensure that hunting is banned for sentimental reasons.
 The alternative sport of drag hunting would lead to drag hounds being shot at the end of their working lives. I urge Members to consider widening the utility test rather than taking the misplaced view that moving to drag hunting will solve all the welfare problems. It would not solve them but it would create a new set of problems. 
 My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal talked about facts, to which we should get back. One important thing about the utility test is to try to include better recognition of the preservation of the landscape as a test for the continuation of hunting, which is something that I thought we were debating at Portcullis house. However, I have since discovered that we were not debating, but merely wasting the experts' time.

Alun Michael rose— [Hon. Members: ''He doesn't like that.''] Conservative Members say that I do not like that; they are right. I do not like misrepresentations of what happened in Portcullis house. There was an opportunity to make the argument on the subject of the landscape, but the case made was not convincing. Everybody had an opportunity to make a case.

Peter Luff: I see. Judge and jury have spoken, but the jury of public opinion and the jury of those present at the Portcullis house hearings suggest that the Minister is wrong. He thinks that the judge and jury of his office is obviously the right one, but I disagree with him. The case for the inclusion of other issues was made very powerfully and no evidence against their inclusion was produced. He has decided for strictly party political reasons—about which we must be honest—that he will not include them in the test. We know that the Bill is about Labour party management and not about the interests of the countryside. [Interruption.]

George Stevenson: Order. I realise that the group of amendments is profoundly important and wide-ranging, but we must stick to the amendments.

Peter Luff: I am grateful to you, Mr. Stevenson.

John Gummer: The amendments arise out of the Portcullis house discussions. Does my hon. Friend agree that those who came to them were assured by the Minister that he would listen seriously to what they said? What they said was without question opposed to
 what the Minister has done. Has he not deeply misled those took part in the discussions?

Peter Luff: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not want to suggest that the Minister had misled anyone, and I sure that it was unintentional if he did. However, I was certainly misled. I thought that I was there to debate the merits of the issues, but I discovered that that was not the case because all the evidence was simply ignored.

Alun Michael: It is very sad that the Middle Way Group, which sought to portray itself for such a long time as searching for another way rather than one of the two extremes, has lurched into the pro-hunting camp. The hon. Gentleman, who is casting aspersions, might consider how it looks for a Conservative Whip to make those sorts of remarks. He should acknowledge—because he knows it to be true—that I listened carefully to everything that came forward and looked at all the evidence. The Bill is based on the principles that I have set out and on the evidence that I have heard. What we are hearing from Opposition Members is prejudice. [Hon. Members: ''Oh!'']

George Stevenson: Order. I make a further plea to hon. Members to return to the content of the amendments. I hope that hon. Members will assist me in that process. Raking over political motives will not aid the Committee.

Peter Luff: I agree and I stand corrected. However, I say to the Minister—I still like him—that the process was good and I welcomed it. I even welcomed the utility test when the Minister first explained it to me in his private office, because I thought that he had listened. However, when in the cold light of day I sat down and considered what it meant, I realised that he had not listened or accepted the evidence. I do not know why he ignored the great mass of evidence about the benefits of hunting and I look forward to hearing him explain.
 The Middle Way Group remains concerned about many aspects of hunting and I will explain some of those concerns in the clause stand part debate, which I hope will be brief. We in the Middle Way Group believe that the utility test, coupled with the cruelty test, is an appropriate way of proceeding. It is not the way that we thought of, but it addresses some of the legitimate concerns that exist in the countryside about some aspects of hunting. However, the utility test needs to be changed to make it acceptable. We believe that hunting should be allowed to continue because it is in the best interests of the countryside, the quarry species and liberty—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the Minister is not listening to the response to his intervention.

George Stevenson: Order. I remind members of the Committee of the important distinction between accusing hon. Members of not listening and accusing them of not agreeing after they have listened. I am sure that the Minister is listening very carefully.

Peter Luff: He seemed to be deep in conversation with his Parliamentary Private Secretary; I do not think that he listened to a word I was saying.
 We want to change the utility test because we believe that banning hunting, which would be the effect of the utility test, is wrong and not in the interests of animal welfare. We believe that the Minister has misunderstood. To be fair to the Minister, he has changed his mind. He used to be an outright absolute banner and that was the view that he took in the previous Committee on the matter. I pay tribute to him because he has changed his mind and I am grateful to him for that. He has now accepted that in some circumstances, hunting is the appropriate method of control and has utility. Even under his narrow definition of utility, some fox packs—not very many—would survive. I welcome that, because it shows that he has listened to some of the arguments and understood them. The Minister has jumped an awful lot of jumps in the past couple of years, but he has fallen at the last one and, in the process, he has not achieved the outcome that he set out to achieve.

James Gray: Is my hon. Friend aware of one of the reasons why the Minister may have changed his views? Of the 184 submissions that are in the House of Commons Library on the subject of hunting with dogs, 174 are in favour and 10 are against. Perhaps that is why he has changed his mind and thinks that hunting with dogs is reasonable.

Peter Luff: Perhaps it is a result of the change in public opinion, as well.
 I return to the amendments. Unfortunately, habitat has been overlooked in the utility tests. The Game Conservancy Trust has been undertaking a project to map the extent of habitat management undertaken for country sports. The results show that at least 23,270 hectares of woodland are managed for foxhunting in England and Wales. That is roughly double the area of woodland found in national nature reserves. The Burns inquiry concluded: 
''Foxhunting has undoubtedly had a beneficial influence in lowland parts of England in conserving and promoting habitat which has helped biodiversity, although any effect has been in specific localities. In the case of hare hunting and coursing, it seems clear that those interested in these activities have helped to maintain habitats which are favourable to the hare and to a number of other species.''
 The very powerful arguments made by the Game Conservancy Trust and others should be reflected in the Bill. If the utility test is not amended, one of the unfortunate consequences will be the loss of important habitats, such as the nightingale wood in Warwickshire to which I referred earlier. 
 I move on to vermin control and to individual animals, rather than just whole species. I declare an interest; I am about to refer to the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, of which I am a member. The BASC represents 120,000 shooters and keepers. Its submission to the Burns inquiry stated that of the gamekeepers asked—this was in 1994, so the figures are quite old, but I think that they will still be valid— 
''96.4 per cent. said that foxes were present on their land and needed to be controlled. Control was necessary to ensure that damage to game, wildlife and livestock was reduced or kept at acceptable levels. The particularly vulnerable times of year were lambing and nesting.''
 The National Farmers Union has talked about the importance of pest control, and vermin control would be an important addition to the Bill. The NFU said: 
''Pest control requirements will vary sharply from one region to another and from one farm business to another depending on a range of circumstances . . . Full regard must be had to the fact that problems caused by agricultural pests, whether they be foxes, deer, hares, mink or other species can have severe consequences for farmers' businesses.''
 MAFF itself, in its submission to the Burns inquiry, said that 
''foxes can cause serious local problems to farmers and landowners; as a result they may take measures to control local fox populations, as well as responding to individual incidences of fox predation. Foxes may also cause localised problems to free range poultry interests, have a detrimental impact on grey partridge numbers and predate colonies of ground nesting birds''.
 Amendment No. 185, which I welcome, addresses the last point. 
 Forest Enterprises, an agency of the Forestry Commission, a Government body, said that 
''we recognise the risk of localised predation affecting game and/or farming operations of adjoining land occupiers and therefore operate a good neighbour policy. A degree of fox control is carried out by: Direct targeted action (normally in response to specific problems reported by neighbours) by our own Wildlife Rangers''
 and by: 
''Allowing fox hunts and fox control societies to operate on our land.''
 It is tremendously important to look at what that means. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire would have liked to refer to an instance in his constituency to show the importance of the amendment on vermin control, but he is not here so I shall have to do it for him. At Trawscoed farm, Carno, Powys, six lambs were lost in a single night. One was missing, presumed taken away, and the remaining five bodies were photographed by Mr. Clem Richards, a retired farmer and follower of the David Davies hunt; no relation to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). 
 David Jones, a professional huntsman of 30 years who gave evidence at the Portcullis house hearings, and the David Davies hounds and terriers, were called on by the farmer to assist in dealing with the problem. Many hounds were taken to the place where the lambs were killed. They took a line into the nearby Tan-y-Rallt forestry, which is about 300 acres, and located the fox at its den. From there, it was flushed into a net using a single terrier and dispatched with a pistol. Lamb losses ceased. [Interruption.] Labour Members may say, ''That's the way to do it''. However, they miss the fact that later amendments would ban the use of terriers altogether, so that could not be done. In this case, a whole pack of hounds was needed to find the single fox. Otherwise, it would have been like looking for a needle in a haystack. A multiplicity of hounds was needed. Unless the utility test recognises that role for foxhunting, there will be serious adverse consequences for many farmers. 
 There was a slightly different occurrence in my constituency, of which I have very graphic photographic evidence. I should like to share that with the Committee and shall happily e-mail copies of 
 the photographs to hon. Members who would like to see them. One shows a lamb that had its face eaten away by a fox, but survived. The part of the face eaten away was where it had been taking milk from its mother; the fox took away that side of the lamb's face, leaving it alive. It was one of a pair of twin lambs. The other was killed and taken away the previous night. The farmer called in the North Cotswold hunt, whose kennels are in my constituency. During the next three days, three further lambs were lost with similar injuries.

Tony Banks: Who is being sentimental now?

Peter Luff: I am documenting not sentiment, but actual suffering. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the cruelty test is sentimental, let us remove it because clearly it has no role. I attach importance to animal welfare, something that distinguishes the Middle Way Group. We believe that animal welfare, together with human freedom, is one of the most important issues in the debate. I believe that the welfare of this lamb, which is representative of many similar lambs, is important. The evidence here suggests to me that the only way of dealing with such unnecessary suffering—cruelty—is the continuation of hunting. That must be reflected in the utility tests. I am discussing not sentiment, but animal welfare. I think that there is a very important distinction between them.

Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman's anecdotes, which I am sure are absolutely true, demonstrate that the fox will prey on other creatures. We understand that. The important argument is how to deal with it. To turn that round and say that the problem will be dealt with by the maintenance of hunting is not acceptable to us.

Peter Luff: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. He is one of very few Labour Members who are consistent. I disagree with his conclusions, but he has reached them with genuine principles and total consistency, for which I admire him. The problem is that when trying to identify a single rogue fox that is doing particular damage, it is necessary to find a way of tracking the fox back to its lair. It is no good going out lamping with a rifle and hoping to find it because other foxes will be shot that are not involved in the difficulty caused by the rogue fox. The best way is to use hounds that can follow the scent.

Nicholas Soames: Does my hon. Friend agree that foxes, as the hon. Member for West Ham knows, are highly opportunistic feeders? They will go after whatever they can get easily, particularly the vulnerable, which is why they are such pests to farmers. Whatever happens, destroying foxes in the ways that would have to be used if hunting ends would cause a complete conservation imbalance in the countryside, to the detriment of farmers in particular.

Peter Luff: I hope that my hon. Friend will expand on that later when he can catch your eye, Mr. Stevenson, because that is an important part of the amendments and I entirely agree with him.

Andrew George: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Luff: I shall finish my case histories and then give way to the hon. Gentleman.
 I cited one case in Powys in which a large number of dogs were needed to follow a fox to its lair and dispatch it to end suffering. In another case, a small number of hounds was needed from the North Cotswold hunt. The terrier man succeeded in locating and dispatching the culprit and the losses ceased immediately. The fox, unlike its victims, received a quick and instant death. Fox predation is an easy phrase to use, but for those who are unfortunate enough to witness what it involves it is a sickening and distressing sight—I shall happily distribute the photographs. If foxes killed only to survive and to take food, why did this particular fox attack and so appallingly injure the lamb when it already had a more than ample supply of food for its cubs in the first twin that had been taken the previous night? Why did it take a lamb daily when a single lamb would last it and its cubs for days? That is not an isolated example in my constituency. There were a further three separate instances of such injuries in the North Cotswold hunt country last year. The distance between each suggested that they were the work of different foxes. It is tremendously important to take account of that. I do not believe that the wrongs, nuisances or acts of terror committed by a fox on lamb populations can be dealt with unless we maintain hunting. It is important that the Committee understands its role in controlling such outbreaks, as well as the broader issue of conservation and species management. 
 If hunting did not have a broader utility than that defined in the Bill, why do farmers find hunting with dogs such an efficient method of wildlife management? The Countryside Alliance carried out a survey. Hon. Gentlemen may doubt the source and it is right to treat it with a degree of caution because it has a vested interest, but the figures are entirely commensurate with my experience in my constituency. The survey showed that 94.7 per cent. of farmers normally allow hunting with dogs on their farms, including the use of terriers and lurchers, 4.2 per cent. said that they did not allow it and 49.13 per cent.—a precise figure—of farmers carry out no alternative methods of control other than hunting with dogs. Those figures are important. Banning hunting with dogs could have serious consequences for the amenity of the countryside and animal welfare.

Andrew George: I should like the hon. Gentleman to clarify two issues. First, he said that 2 per cent. of lambs are taken by foxes. According to the veterinary journal from which those figures are taken, 2 per cent. of lambs lost are taken by foxes. He may like to put the record straight.
 Secondly, the hon. Gentleman argues that the only way to deal with a particular fox is for the hunt to follow a scent and that it is impossible to follow the scent back from the problem on a particular farm. I described a humane trap during a previous debate. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that it can actually deal on the farm with a specific problem?

Peter Luff: The hon. Gentleman described that wonderful Heath Robinsonian humane trap—a
 Liberal Democrat affordable home for foxes—at length. If it was as successful as he says, it would be in wider use by farmers. It may have some local and specific relevance and I am not dismissing it because I have not seen detailed evidence and do not want to comment in detail. However, my instinct tells me that if it was as successful as the hon. Gentleman suggested, it would be in much wider use.

Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Luff: If I could finish my next point, I will then give way to the hon. Gentleman.
 On the 2 per cent. figure, I am not sure, but I was quoting the Minister. Whatever the figure, if fox predation of lambs is low, that is a tribute to present management of the countryside. If it is 0.2 per cent., that helps my argument because it would mean that the current management regime is successful and we need to keep it successful if farmers, who are often on marginal incomes, are to stay in business.

Tony Banks: First, I well recall the words of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) who said that one should not judge human beings by the same standards as foxes. The hon. Gentleman is speaking as though foxes are equivalent to human beings, which is an accusation that is often thrown from the Opposition and is not relevant.
 Secondly, on traps, I have been in contact with the British Pest Control Association and hope to give more details later about the methods it has been talking about to control rural and urban foxes, one of which is cage trapping. It is wrong to mock the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) for suggesting that that is an unrealistic proposition.

Peter Luff: I am sorry if I was guilty of mocking the hon. Member for St. Ives . I was mocking his party.

Michael Foster: One should not mock the afflicted.

Peter Luff: As the hon. Gentleman so rightly says, one should not mock the afflicted. I stand corrected.

Andrew George: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Luff: I have not finished responding to the hon. Member for West Ham. I look forward to hearing what he has to say about the British Pest Control Association and will listen carefully. I suspect that cage trapping has a place in the range of control mechanisms and I do not want to dismiss it as part of that range.
 If I was guilty of being anthropomorphic about the fox, I apologise profoundly. That is one of the central mistakes made by those who would ban foxhunting, although it applies on both sides of the argument. One often hears those who are pro-hunting saying that the fox is not frightened, it enjoys the chase and so on. It is a difficult challenge to get into the mind of a fox and we spent some time discussing that at Portcullis house. I concluded that I could not do that and I suspect that no one will ever be able to do so until a mutant fox can talk and explain exactly how it feels. If I said anything to convey that impression, I apologise.

Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman asked whether the trap designed by my uncle on his farm had been widely used. I do not know whether he should have patented it, but I saw in last night's Evening Standard that a hunter, Red—perhaps I should not be advertising him—uses a mobile trap that is similar to my uncle's trap. He has trapped and killed 9,000 foxes in London.

Peter Luff: I can see that traps have a role in the total management of the countryside, but we are not aiming for extermination of the fox population. None of us wants to achieve that. We want a healthy, balanced population in the wild. I am sure that traps have a role to play in the total package of control measures, but they are not the answer to all our problems or they would be used more widely. In urban areas, we are looking for the total extinction of foxes, if that can be achieved, and they may help to achieve that.

James Gray: All this talk about trapping is interesting, but does my hon. Friend agree that one of the important aspects of foxhunting is dispersal of the pest? For example, last Saturday, we found seven foxes in a field of maize. None of them was killed, but they were moved on from the field and the farm. It is a question not only of killing foxes but of moving them on.

Peter Luff: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I suspect that when we debate autumn hunting, we will hear a similar argument for the role of cub hunting in dispersal.
 The issue is much more complex than Labour Members realise and if they would only listen to the arguments and absorb them, they might begin to understand what they risk doing in the countryside by an apparently simple act. The issue is not simple and it is full of paradoxes, as Lord Burns said.

Hugo Swire: We had further evidence of some people's ignorance about handling foxes and what to do with them a couple of weeks ago. A friend told me that she was out hunting with the Tedworth hunt when it drew a covert and out came a fox on three legs, its fourth leg sporting a bandage.
Mr. Luff rose—

George Stevenson: Order. We may be straying into discussing understanding and ignorance rather than dealing with the purpose of the amendments, which is to determine whether they should form part of the test of utility.

Peter Luff: In that spirit, I shall turn strictly to amendment No. 111. I have some personal difficulties with this issue, which is a bit like the economic arguments. Are there other ways to achieve ''social and cultural cohesion''? I have concluded that foxhunting is a unique way to achieve such cohesion and if it is abolished it will be a permanent loss to the countryside. I repeat that if hunting is not cruel—it will have to pass the cruelty test later in the Bill—why not at least include social cohesion as a balancing factor, which the registrar should also take into account in considering his decision, rather than as a first-line factor? The amendment is important and the Committee would be ill advised to dismiss it.
 Professor Gary Marvin is a senior lecturer in sociology and anthropology at the university of Surrey in Roehampton. He is also apparently the leading authority on the social and anthropological role of hunting, although I have not had the privilege of meeting him. In a study of the impact of a ban on traditional hunting in the Scottish borders, he concluded, 
''The removal of . . . hunting from the Scottish Borders would result in a profound and deeply felt social and cultural impoverishment, a collapse of sociality and a loss of the community that has been created by it: and this at a time when there are pressures on community and sociality and when the loss of both clearly creates conditions of social isolation and exclusion.''
 I should like to see the full study that Professor Gary Marvin wrote to reach that conclusion, to which I am drawn through my experience in Mid-Worcestershire. 
 I came to support hunting because of the friends whom I made in the hunting community. Even in a constituency such as Mid-Worcestershire, which is relatively close to cities and large towns, they derive a clear sense of community from it. How much more powerful is that community in remote areas? The culture of the hunting community involves people from widely differing income brackets and social backgrounds, hugely varying ages and it involves large numbers of women and men. One of the individuals featured in the current Countryside Alliance advertising campaign is a plumber from the constituency of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). He is displayed beneath the headline, ''Toff?'' Hunting is about bringing together a broad range of people to enjoy a shared experience. I expect my hon. Friends, particularly those from deer hunting areas, will want to make more of that point, which I shall not stretch, later on.

Tony Banks: I thought that I would let the hon. Gentleman look at his notes to see where he wants to take us next. On rural social activities, what about Tupperware parties or coffee mornings? Do they have no role in the rural community?

Peter Luff: The average tenant farmer in Worcestershire would not enjoy a Tupperware party. Perhaps an Ann Summers party would be more to the point.

George Stevenson: Order. Unless the Chair can be shown that there is hunting with dogs at those parties, I am not going to allow them to be debated.

Peter Luff: I have a vision in my mind, which I will try to get out of it, Mr. Stevenson.

Paddy Tipping: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Luff: Reluctantly, although I have not given way to the hon. Gentleman so far.

Paddy Tipping: I just wonder whether Ann Summers parties, which provoke the imagination, would give rise to hunting with dogs.

Peter Luff: Oh, the temptation is great. The Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for The Wrekin, is silent, which is something, but I am sure that he is tempted.
 I will not labour the point about social cohesion. I was going to say a lot more, but in view of the time and the number of interventions that I have taken, I will move on. However, we need to bear the issue in mind. 
 Amendment No. 112 deals with—[Interruption.] I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Worcester would not try to put me off my stride—the ''collection of dead, injured, ill and surplus livestock from farms.'' For the benefit of the Worcester Evening News, which is following the debate carefully, my last comment to the hon. Gentleman was made with a smile on my lips and in a great spirit of friendliness across the Chamber. 
 Hunts form part of the socio-economic balance within rural communities and provide a variety of services to farmers. The fallen stock collection service is an important and valued part of hunting's utility. The amendment would ensure that this aspect of utility was made explicit on the fact of the legislation, which it should be. If hunting were banned or individual hunts stopped by the registrar, the casualty service provided by the hunts would cease. Hunts offer that service either free of charge or at a minimal fee. It will become all the more significant with the ban on on-farm burial, which will come into force this year. 
 The Government acknowledged the contribution of the service as recently as 8 January 2003. In another place, Baroness Masham of Ilton asked Her Majesty's Government: 
''What owners of stock should do with fallen stock when new regulations come into force . . . which prohibit them from burying animals which have died.''
 Lord Whitty replied that 
''The usual routes for disposal of fallen stock are by rendering, incineration or taking to an approved knacker or hunt kennel.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 January 2003; Vol. 642, c. WA219.]
 The Government have repeatedly acknowledged the importance of the service. On 22 November 2000, the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), a former MAFF Minister, said that 
''Hunt kennels provide a valued service to the farming industry by removing casualty and fallen stock''—[Official Report, 22 November 2000; Vol. 357, c. 226W.]
 The loss of a free pest control service and fallen stock collection will create significant new costs for already hard-pressed farmers. The issue is serious, and I should like to know what the Minister suggests will take its place.

Russell Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Luff: In a moment.
 A farmer working a 70-hour week currently earns about £2.93 per hour, which is below the national minimum wage of £4.20 per hour. An extra cost of any kind is therefore a serious matter for farmers. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the importance of 
 the service, which is provided free or at a subsidised rate by hunts. 
 Before I give way to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), which I shall do once, he suggested that a hunt about which we were talking earlier was in his constituency. I have been informed that it may not be in his constituency. If that information is correct, I hope that this intervention will be more accurate.

Russell Brown: I am seeking further information from the hon. Gentleman. He is making the case for the valued role of hunts with regard to fallen livestock. Can he put a figure on the percentage of fallen livestock throughout the country that are uplifted by hunts?

Peter Luff: It is very high; certainly in my constituency. I will seek to obtain a figure for the hon. Gentleman.

Adrian Flook: Will me hon. Friend give way?

Peter Luff: One of my hon. Friends is about to come to my rescue.

Adrian Flook: I can provide the hon. Member for Dumfries with the figures, which are accepted by DEFRA. A 1999 MAFF survey found that 40 per cent. of calves, 32 per cent. of bovines and 15 per cent. of sheep were collected by hunts across the country.
Mr. Gray rose—

Peter Luff: I shall now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), whom I suspect has a similar point to make.

James Gray: The number of carcases collected by hunts in the last 12 months is 400,000, which would have resulted in a collection cost of £3.37 million.

Peter Luff: The figures are large, and I hope that they fully answer the hon. Member for Dumfries's question. The Burns report concluded that many farmers
''would feel that they had suffered an economic loss since a free 'pest control' service would have been removed; they would expect more predation of lambs, poultry, piglets and game birds; and they would lose the 'fallen stock' service provided by many hunts. The negative impacts of a ban would be particularly resented because they would be viewed as unnecessary by many of those affected, and as an avoidable addition to other problems facing the farming community.''

Hugo Swire: At a time when we are all trying to encourage better farming practice, particularly in the wake of foot and mouth, surely the removal of a stock disposal service from the farming community would be utterly regrettable. I am not casting aspersions on farmers, but some who are financially hard-pressed might be tempted to dispose of carcasses in a different manner, which would not help to control disease on farms.

Peter Luff: If the amendment is not accepted, we will put farmers in a difficult position. They will be put between the devil and the deep blue sea. They will either have to find a service, which they will be unable to afford, or break the law; that is an invidious position in which to put people.
 Earlier, the Minister criticised me for the intemperate nature of my remarks. He claimed that the Middle Way Group had changed its position, but we have not done so. There are many things in the practice of hunting that need to be changed. Indeed, many things have been changed under the new rules established by the Masters of Foxhounds Association and the Independent Supervisory Authority on Hunting's jurisdiction of them. If hunting is banned, which the utility test in the Bill would do, those adverse consequences will surely follow. We have to bear them in mind. 
 There is one final adverse consequence that I want to draw to the Committee's attention. Unless hunting is allowed to control animals, there will be an increase in gun activity in the countryside. Dr. David Macdonald of Oxford university's wildlife and conservation research unit, in a document entitled ''Managing British Mammals: Case Studies from the Hunting Debate'', says: 
''It is probable (in the absence of hunting with dogs) that there would be an increase in shooting and snaring effort. In mid-Wales 95 per cent of farms had some form of fox culling and 69 per cent. relied exclusively on communally organised methods that involved dogs. Given that this is an intensive sheep-rearing country where snaring is difficult and unpopular . . . and assuming that they do not have one for other reasons, one possibility is that 573 farmers might therefore wish to acquire firearms certificates. For the east Midlands and west Norfolk, the equivalent figures are 347 and 186 farmers.''
 These would not be the experienced shots to whom Lord Burns refers in his inquiry. They would be adequate shots for game purposes. Typically they would be using not rifles, but shotguns. 
 I am uncomfortable with the idea of killing a fox using a shotgun. I was out rough shooting on Saturday with a friend. At present, he relies entirely on foxhunting to control the fox population in the areas over which he has shooting rights. He told me that if the Worcestershire hunt were to cease its functions because it failed the utility test as currently defined, he would have to go out to kill a lot more foxes. Ideally, he would do that by lamping with a rifle. He is a good shot, but I doubt whether he would get a rifle certificate from the West Mercia constabulary. He might do. If he does not, he will have to go out loaded with his BB cartridges and a shotgun and kill foxes in a way that I regard as unacceptable. Unless the utility test is amended in the way we suggest, more foxes will be killed with guns in the countryside. That is not only bad for the foxes that will be wounded—I referred earlier to the study on wounding that the Middle Way Group is currently conducting—it is dangerous for the general public. 
 The draft right to roam maps under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 are now being published. They give the public 24-hour access to all unenclosed lands. The Firearms Act 1968 says that it is an offence for a person without lawful authority or reasonable excuse to have a loaded shotgun or loaded air weapon or any other firearm, loaded or not, together with suitable ammunition for that firearm in a public place. The definition of public place under the Act includes any highway and any other premises or place to which at the time in question the public have access. It includes footpaths and bridleways. The 
 Government are currently trying to clamp down on that. 
 Presumably it would not be an offence to discharge a weapon for shooting foxes. But the situation is not one to be encouraged. Night shooting with high-powered rifles would require closing the area to public access. That will entail publishing maps in local newspapers and posting the area to tell people what is going on. If on the night in question the weather is hopeless and it is not possible to shoot, it has to be done all over again. 
 I do not want the Minister to get the wrong impression. The Middle Way Group is quite clear that there have been problems with hunting. We believe that the correct way is to look at the codes of conduct, which I believe are now broadly right—although some tweaking may be necessary—and enshrine them in legislation. If he proceeds with the utility and cruelty test, which is another valid way of proceeding, he must accept many of the amendments, or at least the spirit of them. It may be, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) said earlier, that the way in which they fit into the Bill at present makes it too easy for hunts to pass the utility test. He may be right and I am prepared to discuss that with him. 
 Unless we recognise the power and validity of these other arguments, which have somehow dropped out of the Bill for reasons I do not understand, hunting will be banned over large areas of England and Wales. There will be no gains for animal welfare. The British public will be put at risk from increased shooting activities. More foxes will suffer. Wildlife and biodiversity will suffer. So much will suffer. I urge the Minister and Labour Members to think carefully about what they are doing. The consequences of the utility test not being amended are exceptionally serious.

Andrew George: I wish to make a brief contribution to the debate. I know that hon. Members want to get on to the clause stand part debate and to start making progress on the Bill. There are a few amendments in my name; amendment No. 114, which I do not see on the order paper, and amendment No. 115. My intention with regard to the latter of the two could have been conveyed by an intervention. It is a probing amendment, through which I sought clarification from the Minister. I am sure that he will give his clarification in his winding up speech on this debate.
 It would be helpful to have clarification as to why reference to human and animal consumption is contained in schedule 1 and not contained in the list of possible justifications for hunting in clause 8. I simply wanted to tease out whether he could give examples to justify that exemption, and whether it was purely an issue of the hunting of rabbits or for other reasons. Could he also justify the exemption under schedule 1? That is relevant, in that there has to be consistency between clause 8 and schedule 1. He must not open up the possibility of the exemption justifying a hunt in order that hounds can obtain meat of whatever source, whether that is fox or any other type of meat.

Nicholas Soames: May I clarify something that the hon. Gentleman is saying? Of course the hounds are fed on meat, much of which comes from fallen stock. As the hon. Gentleman comes from good farming stock, he knows that the hunts provide a service that is quite invaluable, collecting meat way over and above anything that they could possibly require. They do so as part of a social service to the countryside; a thank you to the farmers and part of a commitment to the good care, conservation and cleanliness of the countryside.

Andrew George: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and I intend to comment briefly on the issue of fallen stock. It is an important issue—one that I have raised during the debate on several occasions—for the future of farming and of rural life.
 I felt that, by and large, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) made a number of valid points and a well-argued case covering all the issues in the amendments tabled by him and my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire. That has helped to tease out where the main technical issues are. 
 Having come to the debate not sharing the passions of those on either side of the argument, one feature that I found in the contribution of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire was a strong case that he was engaged in a dialogue with people who did not understand country ways and life. Similarly, a strong argument has been made that the pro-hunting lobby do not understand the reasons for a ban. Those two arguments are made with equal passion. That is not really a dialogue of misunderstanding; the passion of the debate is creating a dialogue of the deaf, which is not taking us anywhere. 
 The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire made some interesting points, but I did not think that any of them sincerely questioned the argument for the registration of hunting, let alone the ban. I should be interested to hear how, having listened to the arguments, the Minister can justify not going for a complete ban. Perhaps we will have an opportunity to tease the matter out in the stand part debate. The hon. Gentleman also argued that hunting protects quarry species. We have heard that argument on several occasions and I am not convinced by it. 
 I do not approach the issue with a sentimental view of the place of foxes in the countryside. I was brought up on a smallholding that had a pig unit. Unfortunately, one evening the barn door was left slightly ajar and seven of our sows were killed. I was young at the time, but I was deeply affected by the experience. It certainly gave me no love for the fox. I am well aware of the impact of the depredations of foxes on farming. 
 On the ecological effects, the hon. Gentleman argued that without foxhunting there would be fewer nightingales in Warwickshire. The incidental effects of hunting, such as the beneficial ecological effect, could work in a number of ways. As it is not the primary purpose of hunt supporters to achieve those wider 
 biodiversity outcomes, hunting will not necessarily have such a significant impact on that issue either.

Peter Luff: I am having some difficulty following the hon. Gentleman's logic. I want to give him the opportunity to explain his point again. It is true that it is not the primary intention of hunts to protect biodiversity, but they take pleasure from that accidental outcome. I will not over-claim. If hunting ends, there will not be total rape and pillage of the English countryside. However, there will be significant losses in many areas, not only in my constituency or in Warwickshire. Will the hon. Gentleman examine that point again and explain exactly what he means?

Andrew George: I have been a member of farming and wildlife advisory groups in my area and in Nottinghamshire. Having been involved in a lot of conservation work in the countryside, I do not get the impression that banning foxhunting would have a significant impact on wildlife. It may well do so in certain areas, but achieving wildlife benefits requires many actions on the part of many people, including landowners, who do not simply act in that way for reasons to do with hunting.
 The hon. Gentleman said that many hunt supporters get pleasure from wildlife benefits; I am not arguing that they do not get pleasure from incidental benefits such as maintaining areas of cover to enable foxhunting to take place and to facilitate the flushing out of foxes in certain circumstances. I appreciate that argument, but my experiences of conservation work in the countryside—as I said, I have been a member of farming and wildlife advisory groups and I have also been on county committees—suggest that that is not an impression that could be sustained. I shall not detain the Committee unnecessarily. The hon. Gentleman listed several arguments through which I could run. Perhaps we will have an opportunity to go through those justifications for hunting on clause 8 stand part. It is not, perhaps, worth doing so now. 
 The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) rightly mentioned again the important services provided by hunts to livestock farmers, especially with regard to fallen stock. The Minister will know that on-farm burial will not be permitted after, from my recollection, the middle of May, so it is important that alternatives are made available if hunting is to be banned. Another of my cousins on the Lizard, a dairy farmer at Angrouse in Mullion, calls the hunt in to take his fallen stock, although he does not allow the hunt on his land—he is a pragmatic sort of chap. [Hon. Members: ''A Liberal Democrat'']. I do not know what his politics are, but the hunt happily takes the fallen livestock from his farm. Other services are available to him in that area, but the hunt provides an important service, especially because of its proximity. 
 I agree with the argument that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire made and the statistics given by the hon. Members for North Wiltshire and for Taunton (Mr. Flook). Numerically and proportionately, the hunt provides a significant service in that field. I understand that DEFRA is 
 undertaking further work on that and coming up with proposals to assist livestock farmers, which I think is important.

James Gray: Can the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he is speaking in favour of or against the amendments?

Andrew George: I could go through each of the arguments of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, but I am unconvinced that any of his amendments are justifiable. I am yet to be convinced that there is an argument even for regulation and I look forward to the Minister's reply. My amendment is a probing amendment, intended to tease out consistency. I tabled it for the purposes of debate and will not press it to a vote. I certainly do not support the other amendments because they would widen the scope of utility to such an extent that there would be little point in having registration at all. I shall vote against those amendments, but I look forward to the Minister's comments and clarification on amendment No. 185 and on my probing amendment, No. 115.

Adrian Flook: I first declare an interest, although the Register of Members' Interests would not be concerned with it. My constituency is what some would call the most hunted of constituencies, as my predecessor, Jackie Ballard, claims to have discovered. I have to take issue, however, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal who claims that Jackie Ballard lost her seat because of her dislike of hunting. That is not quite true. There were several other reasons why she lost it, but it was perhaps a major contributory factor.
 Given the nature of my constituency, I have a vested interest in considering the pro-hunting and anti-hunting sides of the debate. Before someone accuses me of being a wanton ruralist and lover of the bucolic, let me make it clear that I respect the views of those who are against hunting. I am foremost a townie and the town of Taunton has the larger number of constituents. However, much of the area covered by my constituency is very rural. There is no doubt that foxes and deer cause serious damage. Clause 8 makes an attempt to define the utility of hunting, but many of my colleagues and I feel that the definition is far too tight. Obviously, Britain no longer has wolves. Man has chased him away and taken over his lair. A ban on foxhunting could lead to the eradication of foxes as well.

George Stevenson: Order. May I try to assess the hon. Gentleman's contribution? I fear that he will stray into a stand part debate if he is not careful. Would he concern himself with the content of the amendments?

Adrian Flook: Of course I shall, Mr. Stevenson.
 The utility that the Minister has written into the Bill is not tight enough. [Laughter.] It has not been defined widely enough. It could well lead to a ban on hunting and the unintended consequence of the eradication of the fox and the deer in my constituency. Therefore, we must broaden the definition in the way that the amendments propose. If I had been allowed to complete my comments, I would have been able to reach that point before you attempted to return me to the course, Mr. Stevenson. 
 In December, the Minister stated: 
''The Bill is designed to recognise utility and prevent cruelty. Let me briefly spell out what that means. The utility test involves asking what is necessary to prevent serious damage to livestock, crops and other property or biological diversity.''—[Official Report, 3 December 2002; Vol. 395, c. 756.]
 However, utility should not be about pest control only. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire said that there should be a full and proper definition of utility, and the amendments provide one. 
 I am concerned as to why the definition of utility has been narrowed. The Minister said on Thursday that, as representatives, we should be concerned with making good law and looking after the interests of the community. I am certain that my constituents do not think that the definition of utility in clause 8 is in their interests. 
 The Minister's test asks what is necessary to prevent serious damage to livestock and crops. It is too narrowly drawn. It ignores economic, environmental, social and cultural elements—the self-selecting aspects. The Minister selected only what he wanted to have in the Bill. It appears that he has not chosen the option that was implied in the letter that he sent out in May to many people around the country, including many in my constituency. As a consequence, the Bill seriously risks compromising the welfare of most types of farming—meat, poultry and egg farming—as well as fishing and shooting, as we discussed. 
 The Minister's insistence on considering only pest control ignores the fact that the culling of one species may well reduce the suffering of the species on which the culled population preys. That is an exceptionally good example of why one needs to consider utility and cruelty together rather than sequentially. Deer and fox hunters have a vested interest in maintaining the habitat as well as a healthy population of the quarry species. That is why the definition of utility should be widened. 
 I am not surprised by the Minister's omissions of the elements that are included in amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20, to which I am particularly speaking. 
 Amendment No. 18 would add ground-nesting birds and amendment No. 19 would add pets and domestic animals. Amendment No. 20, which is broader, would add two new categories of utility. Those two new categories would contribute to the social, cultural, economic and environmental element of hunting and the need for it. The amendment would also add the purpose of obtaining food for animal and human consumption. The amendments do not surprise me because nothing in today's life is as it seems. 
 Most conservationists would argue that golf courses, of which there are 25,000 worldwide and 2,500 in the United Kingdom alone, comprise more than 1 per cent. of Britain's land, as Naturewatch said on Radio 4 on 7 January. People often say that the RSPB looks after a large element of our biodiversity in this country and golf courses also do that. Yet most of us perceive golf courses as manicured lawns and not much more than that. Most people fail to realise that golf courses also have other habitats around them and 
 that applies also to hunting. Many of those on the other side of the argument believe that hunting is only about chasing foxes or deer. It is much more than that; it is much more about wildlife management and land management. 
 At a previous sitting, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire said that hunts looked after a total of 38,000 hectares of the 710,000 hectares of broad-leaved woodland in this country. Hunts have planted coverts to ensure that foxes are available for hunts. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire said that nightingales nest and thrive in one of the hunt areas in his constituency.

Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman is taking us into an interesting area, but he is talking about the incidental benefits that might arise from foxhunting rather than the incidental benefits that might arise from biodiversity on golf courses. He could also argue that there is an interesting improvement in the stock of carrion crows and birds of prey on roadkill following the construction of a motorway. We should concentrate on the main purpose of an activity, and the main purpose of foxhunting is not those incidental benefits that Opposition Members are trying to pray in aid.

Adrian Flook: The hon. Gentleman refers to incidental benefits. I am talking about some of the incidental benefits that make up the whole. There is not one killer argument for or against hunting. It is part of a broader theme, part of which is wildlife conservation and management. At a previous sitting I referred to the importance of hedgerows and EC directive 92/42 EEC and planning policy guidance 9. Many hedgerows are kept up by farmers to encourage and allow hunting to continue, which provide a habitat for the nesting of birds and the jumps for hunters. We also referred on Thursday to Dr. David Macdonald of Oxford university, who carried out a survey in 1987 of 800 farmers where foxhunting took place. He found that the destruction of hedgerows was some 35 per cent. less than in areas where hunting did not take place.

Peter Luff: The hon. Gentleman, in his thoughtful intervention, was wrong. We are discussing two halves of the test for foxhunting. The second test—the cruelty test—must also be passed, so we need not worry too much about being generous in the utility test. Let us broaden the argument. The incidental benefits can be recognised, but the cruelty must be passed. If we bring animal welfare into the argument, there is no problem.

Adrian Flook: I thank my hon. Friend. We believe that the utility and cruelty tests should be taken together.
 To return to the point made by the hon. Member for West Ham, looking at one angle is not looking at the matter in the whole. I hope that, having discussed the matter in many debates in recent days

Tony Banks: Years.

Adrian Flook: Years, in the hon. Gentleman's case. I hoped that he would not have wanted to pick on one aspect of what I was talking about when I was going to talk about others. Dr. David Macdonald of Oxford university said that where hunting took place, the incidence of hedgerows being ripped out was 35 per
 cent. less. On that basis we should welcome Government amendment No. 185, which will broaden amendment No. 18, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire.
 For some, hunting is also a recreation that helps to finance the biodiversity management that I have been talking about. Recreation does not equal pleasure. Some Government Members are always jumping up and down saying that pleasure should not be derived from pursuit of the fox. In the small amount of rock climbing that I have done, one does not take pleasure from climbing the rock face—[Hon. Members: ''Yes, you do.''] Those who are keen climbers might, but for those of us who are climbing to get to the top rather than just climbing for the sake of it, it is getting to the top that is important.

Alun Michael: For the sake of brevity, we accept that point. I do not always enjoy being in the gym.

Adrian Flook: The Minister could of course go jogging and then at least he would get some utility as well the non-cruel benefit he might be causing some of his muscles. The amendments would broaden the utility test, which is important, alongside the cruelty test, in allowing hunting to continue.

Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman can anticipate my question. On the enjoyment of sport and recreation being part of the utility test, it is not the enjoyment per se that concerns me, but that it is a wholly subjective test. All that the individual has to do is say to the registrar, ''I enjoy this activity'', and the utility test is automatically passed. Does the hon. Gentleman support that, as the hon. Member for North Wiltshire does? The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire said he would have a rethink on that question.

Adrian Flook: Having never been foxhunting or deer hunting, I cannot comment on the pleasure that they might get from hunting. All I say is that they should have the liberty to continue to hunt.

Peter Luff: Is not the point, which is becoming all the more clear during the debate, that if it does not cause a problem somewhere else, people should be free to do what they like? If people say that they enjoy something and it does not cause anyone else a problem, they should be free to enjoy themselves. If it does not cause unnecessary suffering to the quarry species—it has to pass the second test as well—what is the problem? In the interventions, we see people trying to make the test tougher to ensure all hunting is banned, instead of putting animal welfare at the heart of their concerns.

Adrian Flook: The point is well made by my hon. Friend, and I would not like to enter into the stand part debate in answering him further.

Alan Whitehead: I fear that the hon. Gentleman has missed the point. The point of the utility test is that something happens that can be measured in some way. He is talking about something that cannot be measured. Another way of putting his suggestion would be that someone could go to a tribunal and say, ''I like this.'' That is another way
 of saying that one gets pleasure or recreation from something. Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot accept that that is a reasonable test in any way, shape or form of utility? He may wish to pursue another Bill with a separate series of functions related to it, but as far as the utility test is concerned, he cannot defend that position.

Adrian Flook: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening after his ears pricked up when I used the word ''recreation''—this was exactly my point—he would have heard me say that hunting helps finance biodiversity management, which is part of amendment No. 20. If something passes the tests to allow biodiversity to happen, someone will have to pay for that. That is the point that the hon. Gentleman is missing.

James Gray: The point that Labour Members are missing is that no one has suggested that any one of the utility tests should, of itself, be sufficient. The registrar will be required to look at a list of different utilities to assess which of them apply to the practice for which permission is being applied and compare those with the possible suffering caused by that activity. It is nonsense to suggest that as long as one passes the biodiversity tests, one will necessarily be registered. One will need to pass all the tests considered together.

Adrian Flook: Once again, we come back to the fact that such things must be considered as a whole. As we discussed earlier, the question as to where hunting is taking place must also be considered. What is important in hunting in East Anglia will be different from what is important in the Welsh hills.

Gregory Barker: Does my hon. Friend also accept that the recreation and enjoyment provided by hunting is just one of a plethora of arguments that could be made in favour of it? In coarse fishing, on the other hand, that is the only argument in favour of an activity that involves the infliction of cruelty on a species.

Adrian Flook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, but I wish to make progress.
 There is a need for wildlife management and stewardship, and that supports hunting. Passing amendment No. 20 to broaden the utility test would give us better wildlife management, or stewardship. The fox has no predator and, in my opinion, man has a moral obligation to manage its numbers, having got rid of its predator, the wolf. Looking at that from another angle, pest control should be about not only the number of foxes killed but the control and management of the species. Eradication of foxes would be a consequence of banning foxhunting in large areas of the country where it currently takes place. 
 Pest control is only part of maintaining a healthy and balanced fox population. We discussed mange in some detail earlier and on Thursday. Mange is where mites—eight-legged parasites for those who do not know—get on to the fox's skin. Scabies is sarcoptic mange, involving smaller mites burrowing under the skin, which effectively leads to oozing sores on the fox. He gets crusty ear tips as he scratches away. He suffers 
 from fierce itching and hair loss. It is really cruel to allow a fox to continue living like that. Mange, as we should recognise, destroys a fox's ability to outwit and outrun the hunt. As a consequence, it is more likely to be caught. 
 Controlling foxes is not the same as attempting to control pests such as rats. If foxes were not hunted, people would go out of their way to eradicate them completely. Zoologists will explain that the zero option cannot be an option for an indigenous species of this country in the 21st century. That is why amendment No. 20 mentions sustainable management and habitat protection for many species, including the fox. 
 Foxhunting takes place throughout the year. It has a complementary closed season to allow healthy young foxes to be born and reared. It is selective, in that it culls the weak, which have mange or are injured, and the old. More importantly, it causes dispersal. We should consider not just the number of foxes that the hunt kills but its dispersal of foxes around the country. 
 Stewardship is one way of looking at foxhunting. The Bill fails to recognise various important biodiversity arguments, especially principle 22 of the Rio declaration on the environment. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments on how that is recognised.

Tony Banks: With respect, the hon. Gentleman's comments are a little like a speech on Second Reading. Does he really think that if foxhunting were abolished, all foxes—the whole species—would somehow disappear? He seems to be giving us that idea.

Adrian Flook: The hon. Gentleman makes a point about the whole species. Of course the whole species would not be destroyed because foxes already exist in London and other big cities where there are no hunts. The whole species would not disappear. My point was that in areas where foxes are now hunted, they would disappear if hunting were banned. Farmers would go out of their way to destroy what would otherwise be a pest. Healthy foxes exist where there is hunting, so where there is no hunting but a lot of shooting, shooting will take place to an even greater extent.
 More importantly, the quality of the foxes that exist would be affected; they would become more damaged by disease and mange. The injured foxes would wander around injured, rather than being dispatched by the hunt. Although the hon. Member for West Ham is right that the fox would not be eradicated, because it would still exist in cities, the fox population would not be as healthy as it is currently.

James Gray: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Has he has seen the letter from Roddy Bailey, who is the huntsman of the Morpeth hunt? With regard to the experience north of the border, Roddy Bailey writes:
''the Border Hunt's fox population north of the . . . border . . . is down to a quarter of that experienced before the Scottish Act.''
 The same is happening elsewhere. Roddy Bailey says that it is ''slaughter not management.'' What counts is not how many foxes are killed, but how many are left alive. Hunting does that, shooting does not.

Adrian Flook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I am sure that you, Mr. Stevenson, would like us to make some progress. There is every reason why we should discuss other angles of foxhunting and I want to mention them. Amendment No. 20 refers to the social, cultural, economic and environmental elements of the utility test, so I am perfectly within my rights to talk about the culture of what the hunt does and local communities in my constituency and elsewhere; for example, puppy shows are held. Foxhunting is inherent in society. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald often makes the point that she has pictures of people foxhunting on her drawing room curtains. It is all part of the fabric of society—[Hon. Members: ''The fabric of her curtains.'']—but not of her community.
 We have also mentioned fallen stock and the figures that are accepted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Foxhunting also provides recreation. It pays for the utilitarian contribution. All of this makes for a healthy fox population, as I pointed out in a response to the hon. Member for West Ham. 
 All of the things that are important in relation to foxhunting are particularly important in relation to utility and deer hunting. We have hardly touched on deer hunting, but it is important. Indeed, the utility of deer hunting is vital to my constituency. The Bill has prejudged the matter. The Minister said: 
''Incontrovertible evidence shows that the activities of hare coursing and deer hunting cannot meet the two tests, so these activities will be banned.''—[Official Report, 3 December 2002; Vol. 395, c. 756.]
 I will discuss how the amendments would help deer hunting—

George Stevenson: Order. I know that this is difficult. The clause deals with wild mammals and deer clearly fit into that. However, I do not want the hon. Gentleman to prejudge what might happen in the discussions on part 1, which deals specifically with deer hunting.

James Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. During the discussion in the Sub-Committee prior to this Committee, Mrs. Roe, who was the Chairman, agreed that the full aspects of cruelty and utility in relation to deer hunting could be discussed under part 2, even though deer hunting is theoretically banned under part 1. I am not seeking to challenge you in any shape or form, Mr. Stevenson, but merely to inform you of what was said.

George Stevenson: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments, but I assure him that there was nothing to challenge. I was simply reminding the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) that there will be an opportunity to discuss deer hunting in more detail under part 1. I was not rejecting or refusing any comments on deer hunting at this stage.

Adrian Flook: Thank you, Mr. Stevenson. Deer hunting is not foxhunting and the reasons why people go deer hunting could well differ from the reasons why people go foxhunting. It will be useful to bring some of the differences between foxhunting and
 deer hunting to the Committee's attention. In my constituency, I have two of the three packs of what are known as stag hounds, which, for those who wish to know, means that they hunt deer—[Interruption.] It is important for members of the Committee to be accurate when they are discussing the subject and to consider it in the round. We still wait to hear the incontrovertible evidence in Lord Burns's inquiry, which we will no doubt discuss under clause 6. I wait to hear the killer fact.
 Lord King of Bridgewater, who was a Member of Parliament for the constituency of the same name, is and will continue to be a doughty defender of deer hunting. He believes that it is more defensible than foxhunting—a difficult concept to get across to those who have an instinctive view against it—yet it has been singled out by the Minister's sequential test in clause 8. 
 I now wish to address amendment No. 20. The deer on Exmoor belong to all, and hunting is a vital part of the wildlife management process in that area. The deer are seen as a communal resource that is beyond financial value. We have already heard of Graham Sirl, the former head of the west country operations for the League Against Cruel Sports, and his letter, in which he stated that 
''hunting with hounds does play an integral part in the management system for deer on Exmoor and the Quantocks.''
 He went on to say that it is the system most favourable to the well-being of the herd as a whole. He should know, as he was the man in charge of Baronsdown, which encloses part of Exmoor. As we have seen in The Sunday Telegraph and other newspapers, the sanctuary's wildlife management of the red deer was rather poor. That was because it did not discriminate against the old and infirm, whereas hunting does. 
 Deer hunting is also the only method by which one can get a clean head shot and dispatch the deer immediately, which is important for sustainable management of the deer. It is more humane than stalking. Vets for Hunting, which represents 500 rural vets, has said that 
''no one should be under the illusion that stalking, compared with hunting . . . is the humane option.''

Tony Banks: That is a statement. The question is, why?

Adrian Flook: Mr. Stevenson, I am sure that you do not want us to talk about that. [Hon. Members: ''Come on.''] The Chairman has pointed out that I should stick strictly to the amendment.

George Stevenson: Order. To assist hon. Members, we are talking about amendments that deal with utility and not cruelty.

Adrian Flook: I am talking about utility and the importance of wildlife management. Admittedly, Professor Bateson's findings deal with cruelty. Perhaps I should move on, and we can discuss the matter under clause 6.
 My reason for mentioning that 10 per cent. of stalked deer require two or more shots is that healthy deer escape from their predators. In other words, 
 hunting is a managed adaptation of a natural form of predation. Wolves would have taken the deer but, without wolves, the deer multiply. Therefore, man must have a managed adaptation of a natural form of predation that is naturally selective.

Rob Marris: I represent Wolverhampton, South-West; I am a strong supporter of wolves.

Adrian Flook: I would not like to say anything about the Wolverhampton Wanderers, selective culls or the team's division. It was in the premier division when I was a youngster.

Rob Marris: In what division is Taunton?

Adrian Flook: Taunton is riding high in the Dr. Martens league western division.
 When they escape, the deer are undamaged and return to a normal life. Therefore, wildlife management is important. Vets for Hunting stated: 
''There is no scientific evidence and this includes clinical observation, that deer that escape hounds suffer irreversible physiological or pathological damage as a result of being chased.''
 They are healthy deer, and we therefore have sustainable management of the strongest red deer herd. As we have heard, deer hounds also provide a valuable service by finding casualty deer. More importantly, dispersal discourages inbreeding and the spread of disease. Dispersing grandfathers away from situations in which they can sire their granddaughters leads to a healthy deer herd. 
 Government Members who are against the concept of deer hunting are welcome to come to see the local reality on Exmoor, and I can arrange for them to visit the Quantock stag hounds or the larger Devon and Somerset stag hounds. Hunting is important because one deer can eat three times as much as one sheep or—to link it to an earlier discussion—15 times as much as one hare. If one hundred deer are in a field, they can cause considerable damage to crops. Farmers are allowed to kill deer, which means that if we ban the hunting of stags and deer on Exmoor, the deer will be wiped out. The Minister has pointed out that the deer on Exmoor are valuable, although he has not done anything about it. If we eradicate deer hunting on Exmoor, we will eradicate the majority of the deer.

Alan Whitehead: Would that be good for the crops?

Adrian Flook: It would be good for the crops, but it would not necessarily be what the farmers had in mind with regard to biodiversity and land management, which are matters for their decision.
 In 1997, West Somerset district council conducted a survey in which it valued hunting on Exmoor at about £4.5 million. Of that £4.5 million, stag hunting was reckoned to be worth about £3.5 million. On Thursday, my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire said that the total red deer population was in excess of 3,000. He mentioned a population of 3,500 red deer, although I would put it slightly lower, at 2,800. Only 70 red deer are hunted each year, and they come from a herd of 2,800 deer. Many people have said that if we get rid of deer hunting, the total herd will reduce by about 10 per cent. each year as farmers go out and take out the pests that they see on their land. That would be fair enough, because hunting with 
 a rifle is completely legal, although there would be fewer deer. If 10 per cent. fewer deer existed each year, we would be left with about 1,000 deer, which is one third of the current deer herd. 
 Hunting on Exmoor is very important because its value is £4.5 million, but a large element of the deer's value is their attraction to tourists. People who do or do not like deer hunting—it does not matter—go on to Exmoor and look at the deer. If there are fewer deer, there will be less of them to look at and fewer people will visit my constituency. An important point is that the deer will have been frightened by shooting, and will become more night-oriented than day-oriented, which they are at the moment. 
 Exmoor has 500 to 600 compliant landowners who look after the herd and protect habitats, which is something that amendment No. 20 seeks to put on the face of the Bill. They are the people who therefore allow sustainable management on Exmoor, which amendment No. 20 seeks to introduce into the Bill. The group of 500 to 600 compliant landowners are part of the community that is bound together by hunting, to which amendment No. 20 relates. Altogether, the community on Exmoor looks after the deer, which are a valuable resource for the whole of the community. 
 If there is no hunting, large numbers of those 500 to 600 compliant landowners will see deer as a roving cash crop, and indiscriminate opportunists will see them as a possible source of funds. The deer will be taken out and reduced in numbers to about 1,000.

Tony Banks: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could help me with a couple of small facts. First, what is the size of the deer population on Exmoor?

James Gray: Over 3,000.

Tony Banks: Sorry. Did I miss the point about how many are taken by the hunt?

Adrian Flook: The hon. Gentleman was obviously asleep or concentrating on something else because I did mention both figures.
Several hon. Members rose—

George Stevenson: Order. I am sure that no hon. Member would want to give a good impression of a jack-in-the-box.

Adrian Flook: I did mention that figure, and according to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, it is over 3,000. He has mentioned a figure of 3,500. I believe the figure to be 2,800, of which 70 are taken—this is on Exmoor, not the Quantocks—by the hunt each year in the process of hunting. Those are the figures that I was given. I hope that that answers the intervention of the hon. Member for West Ham.
 If no hunting has taken place, large numbers of landowners will take out large elements of the deer herd. During the first sitting, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex, who said that the deer would all be shot if there were a ban on hunting, the Under-Secretary said from a sedentary position, ''Don't exaggerate''. It is not necessary to take it from my hon. Friend. The Exmoor national park authority 
 has said that a ban would affect the future sustainability of the whole herd. That is what the banning of stag hunting would do, which is why amendment No. 20 should be included. It would give a broader meaning to utility so that stag hunting can be considered fairly under the utility test, without discussing clause 6.

Tony Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am awake again. The point is that there are 70. If those 70 cannot be killed by the hunt, somehow the other 2,730 would all disappear; or 2,430 depending on whose figure one uses. I do not understand that.

Adrian Flook: The hon. Gentleman's first intervention made a point about one particular aspect, saying that if one got rid of it, hunting would not be needed. That is one element of what the stag hunts do. They manage a wildlife habitat locally, and in a sustainable way. Part of that habitat is a broader, bigger and healthier element—
Several hon. Members rose—

Adrian Flook: I will not give way at the moment. The hunts will foster a much better herd of deer on Exmoor. They hunt 70, but that is not all that they do. They also disperse the herd wherever they might hole up.

Hugo Swire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps I can help the hon. Member for West Ham, who is also a friend. The evidence for the control of deer by hunting, as opposed to shooting, on Exmoor is best evidenced by the fact that when the North Devon staghounds fizzled out in 1825, the deer population was reduced to about 50 because of shooting. When the North Devon staghounds were reformed and the Tiverton staghounds came back into being, herd numbers increased very quickly by the end of the 19th century to 1,500. In 1905 there was such a surplus that 300 deer were exported to Germany.

Adrian Flook: I am grateful for that helpful, historical intervention. We will no doubt come to that in further detail when we discuss clause 6.

James Gray: Perhaps I can give a more modern example. The National Trust banned stag hunting on the Holicote estate in my hon. Friend's constituency. Until 1997, the hunt killed 15 stag a year. Since then they have been killing about 50 by rifle at Holicote, to the degree that the National Trust stalker himself is on record as being concerned that the entire herd on the estate would be wiped out. That is an example of what would happen if hunting were banned.

Adrian Flook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments about what the National Trust has done to the herd on its own estate. It is not part of my constituency, but of neighbouring Bridgewater. Nevertheless, the point stands because it is on Exmoor.

Alun Michael: There is a danger in the line that the hon. Gentleman is taking. It is encouraging a mythology that ending deer hunting would lead to people blasting off and decimating the deer population. That would be an irrational response and terribly damaging to the local economy and community. [Interruption.]

George Stevenson: Order. I cannot hear the Minister's intervention and I am sure that he wants to get it over with very quickly.

Alun Michael: My point was that that would be an irrational and damaging approach for people to take. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman does not give it credence; to do so would risk creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Adrian Flook: The Minister knows something of what I, as the constituency Member for Taunton, am talking about. He says that he has made several trips to Exmoor and understands its people and what will happen there. I have to refute his attempt to say that what I have suggested is mythology. The only myths that are being spoken are those that the Minister gives. No doubt we will discuss the matter in great detail.

John Gummer: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the Minister is attempting to suggest that when my hon. Friend states a historic or present fact—that when hunting ceases, people shoot more deer—he is in some way encouraging people to carry out such activities? He is not doing that; he is merely stating the fact. The problem with the Minister is that he does not like the facts, so he wishes to undertake that sleight of hand; suggesting, rather dishonourably if I may say so, that my hon. Friend is behaving dishonourably.

George Stevenson: Order. We cannot have imputations regarding the honour of hon. Members. That will get us nowhere. I am sure that the sooner the Minister is on his feet, the sooner we will be able to make decisions on his motives and arguments.

Adrian Flook: Thank you, Mr. Stevenson. I shall return to the point that I was making before the first of that series of interventions.
 The Under-Secretary made the point, I think in our first sitting, that we should not exaggerate the extent to which deer would be taken out; for example, that their numbers would fall to about 1,000 and they would become night animals rather than day animals on Exmoor. In fact, there will be a huge impact on the constituencies of Bridgwater and Taunton and to some extent, those of North Devon and Tiverton and Honiton. Do we take the Under-Secretary's word or that of the Exmoor national park authority, which has said that a ban will affect the 
''future sustainability of the herd''?
 I do not think that we should take the Under-Secretary's word; we should take that of the local national park authority. If hunting goes, so will the emblem of Exmoor, the antlers. That will no doubt go the same way as Cornwall's emblem, the chough. It will become an irrelevant, historical symbol.

Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the chough has returned to Cornwall. Perhaps he will bear that in mind.

Adrian Flook: I am aware that the chough has returned, but I think that it is only one pair, which has arrived during the past two months. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could correct me on that.

Andrew George: It has arrived during the past couple of years.

Adrian Flook: During the past couple of years we have seen one breeding pair. My point is that if the hon. Gentleman, who has, no doubt, a negative view on deer hunting, wishes to come and see for himself what happens on Exmoor and the importance of deer hunting there, he might see why we need to pass amendment No. 20 and understand that deer hunting is an integral part of wildlife and sustainable management on Exmoor. It is also important to the social, cultural and economic well-being of the area, which is why amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20 should be passed.

Rob Marris: I shall speak briefly to amendments Nos. 20 and 113, which are very similar. Amendment No. 20 is designed to drive a coach and horses through the utility test. It would have been more honest to table an amendment to abolish that test. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire took on board the point that I made and said that, given that a number of factors make up the utility test, he would consider withdrawing his amendment and reintroducing it as a multi-factoral amendment on Report. I invite him to do that.
 The hon. Member for North Wiltshire should talk more to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). Amendment No. 20 has eight limbs, which are disjunctive. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire has said today that, ''No one has suggested that any one is of itself sufficient. All the tests must be considered together.'' That is not what he told me on Thursday afternoon when I raised the matter with him in Committee. [Interruption.] On Thursday afternoon, I said: 
''He talks about a hunt, for example, passing two or three of the utility tests but not another two or three, and so on. I suggest from the way in which his amendment is worded, any one will do.''
 The hon. Member for North Wiltshire responded: 
''At no stage did I suggest that one had to achieve two or three.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 16 January 2003; c. 289.]
 However—forgive me for quoting at length, Mr. Stevenson, but I do not want to be accused of quoting out of context—he had previously stated that 
''All the utilities must be considered together, and we are seeking to enable the registrar to do precisely that. He should look at the various utilities and consider whether hunting with hounds is achieving them. It may well be that for each application, two or three such utilities will be achieved but two or three others will not. That will be a matter for the registrar's judgment.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 16 January 2003; c. 288.]
 On Thursday afternoon, the hon. Gentleman accused me of misquoting him, but I do not think that I did so. From a sedentary position, he accused me of misquoting him this morning, but I have not done so because I made a careful note of what he said earlier. I suggest that amendment No. 20 is either a muddle, in which case it should be withdrawn, or a deliberate attempt to drive a coach and horses through the utility test.

James Gray: I shall take the opportunity to clarify the point. The hon. Gentleman is casting a lawyer's eye, rather than a sensible eye, over Hansard. The important point about the utility tests is that the registrar will consider all of them. The registrar will
 consider which parts of the utility tests particular applicants pass. Some applicants will pass some of the tests; in other parts of England, other applicants will pass some of the tests. There have been two equally absurd suggestions. First, that one utility test will be enough; secondly, that an applicant has to pass all the tests. The registrar will consider all the tests together and consider which of the utility tests a particular applicant passes.

Rob Marris: As the hon. Gentleman and the Committee know, I practised law for many years. He says that passing one test will not be sufficient, but that is not what amendment No. 20 says. His intention may have been to make the approach multi-factoral, but I suspect that the germ of the wording of his amendment was supplied by an outside body—he can intervene if I am wrong—because it is very similar to amendment No. 113, except that amendment No. 113 has seven limbs and amendment No. 20 has eight limbs.

James Gray: I drafted it in detail.

Tony Banks: That explains everything.

Rob Marris: That explains a lot. As I suggested to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire at the beginning of this contribution, he should talk more to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough—which would be easier if the hon. and learned Gentleman were in Committee more frequently—in which case the hon. Member for North Wiltshire would not have drafted an amendment that does not encompass that which he intended it to do. If that is the case, I invite him to withdraw it.

Peter Luff: For the sake of clarity, amendment No. 113, which was tabled in my name and that of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, was drafted in the light of seeing amendment No. 20. We had reservations about one aspect of amendment No. 20 and sought to delete that power. Our amendment was taken from that tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire.

Rob Marris: Mistakes tend to replicate themselves, and they have done so in this case. In the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire's thoughtful contribution, he said that he would consider whether to withdraw his amendment and perhaps reintroduce it on Report; he did not make a commitment and I am not suggesting that he did. Again, I invite the hon. Member for North Wiltshire to withdraw amendment No. 20, which does not encompass that which he is telling the Committee he wishes to achieve.

Edward Garnier: I will not follow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West down his road of personal abuse, but I want to congratulate the Government on introducing amendment No. 185. I do not often congratulate them on anything that they do, but in the context of this debate it is perhaps worth giving them some encouragement.
 The Bill, particularly clause 8, stinks. However, if we are to have such a stench-ridden piece of legislation, at least amendment No. 185, which changes subsection (1)(b), makes it marginally more tolerable. 
 My only concern is that the introduction at this late stage of the words ''or wild birds'' after ''game birds'' in paragraph (b) suggests to me that the Government have just thought of something that they should have thought of when they drafted the Bill. 
 We have heard much from all sides of the argument—certainly since the Burns report was published—about what Lord Burns and his team said in their report. We have heard much from the Minister about the evidence that was given by various interested parties at the Portcullis hearings last September. I assume that the Bill and the clause flow from the Portcullis hearings and from the lessons and information that the Minister and his drafting team received as a result. Yet it is only now that the Government have realised that the use of the expression ''game birds'' in paragraph (b) is inadequate to deal with a problem that, surely, must have been apparent. By extending the list of species and properties to be protected from damage by the quarry species to include wild birds, it strikes me that the Government now accept that the drafting of the Bill was deficient. 
 It may be said that the Opposition are introducing amendments, but we did not have the advantage of drafting the Bill. It is our job to do what we can to improve it. While I said at the beginning of my brief remarks that I was extremely grateful to the Government for doing what they can to improve what is otherwise a dreadful Bill, I am highly suspicious of a Government who do not, given the genesis of the Bill, get the legislation thoroughly sorted out from the outset. 
 I trust that we will not have to face further evidence of the Government's failure to get their tackle in order from the outset. The Opposition are here to do their best, but we would be greatly encouraged if we thought that, prior to the publication of the Bill, the Government had thought of all the various aspects to be covered, which, clearly, they have not.

Hugo Swire: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend's comments on clause 8. We are right to spend a long time deliberating it, because it is the kernel of the argument. I shall seek in the time available not to rehearse the many points that we have made but to go through as best I can the various amendments that we have tabled.
 I confess to being still very confused about the terms of utility and cruelty that are the basis of the Bill. Some may think it quite sad, given that it was my wife's birthday at the weekend, that I spent the weekend rereading the Burns report. I was not able to attend all of the three days of hearings at Portcullis house, but I listened to some of them. Neither in rereading the Burns report nor in listening to the Portcullis house hearings was I aware that any link had been established between cruelty and hunting. It is worth making that point because it has a bearing on utility. 
 Lord Soulsby, who was one of the signatories to the Burns report, said in the other place in March 2001: 
''At no point did the committee conclude, or even attempt to conclude, an assessment of cruelty. Yet many bodies have erroneously—I repeat the word 'erroneously'—quoted the Burns report, stating that it clearly demonstrated that the practice of hunting wild animals with dogs caused cruelty. The report did not state that.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 March 2001; Vol. 623, c. 564.]

George Stevenson: Order. I hesitate to intervene because of the time, but if the hon. Member continues his line of argument about cruelty, he will put the Chair in a difficult position. The debate is about utility, and we must stick to that.

Hugo Swire: You are right to draw that to my attention, Mr. Stevenson, but I was trying to make the point that if a decision on cruelty has not been arrived at, how can the Minister construct a Bill based on cruelty and utility? We must suppose from that that the main meat of his argument is utility.
 As my right hon. and hon. Friends have been kind enough to say, the Minister has come some way since his deliberations in at least now accepting the principle of the utility of hunting foxes with hounds. All I hope is that, if the Minister has changed his mind on that, following the Committee's deliberations, he might be persuaded of the logic of allowing a registrar and tribunal to deliberate on the utility of allowing stag hunting and coursing. Alas, the evidence points to the contrary. In an article in The Guardian on 17 January, Patrick Wintour referred to amendment No. 183, tabled by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, which refers to the tough conditions that are being set. Mr. Wintour stated: 
''It raises the hurdle of evidence that will be required.''
 During the next few weeks in Committee it will be interesting to see what further concessions the Minister makes, what happens on Report and to whom he makes those concessions. On current form, it will not be to those who are quite happy for the judgment to be on utility if the meaning of utility is favourably broadened. 
 The Minister said that the purpose of the Bill is to solve a political problem. It is worth remembering that that problem exists only on the Labour Back Benches

George Stevenson: Order. I tried to suggest the direction the hon. Gentleman should take, but he is getting into a stand part debate. Will he please look at the amendments and refer to them in his arguments?

Hugo Swire: Indeed, Mr. Stevenson; I shall return to that later, if I may.

George Stevenson: Order. The hon. Gentleman must return to the amendments now please. That would help the Chair enormously.

Hugo Swire: I shall return to amendment No. 20. The question remains; from what we have heard this
 morning and the past few weeks, how anyone can take the welfare of wild animals seriously if they ignore the practice of conservation? I simply cannot understand why the Minister will not agree to widen the definition of utility, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have suggested, to include conservation.
 When my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex referred last week to the hierarchy of the countryside, there were audible gasps of pleasure from the Labour Members who, typically, thought that he was talking about the rich man at his table and the poor man at his gate. He was not, of course. He was talking about the hierarchy of the countryside: the weasel and stoat hunting the rabbit; the sparrowhawk diving down on to blackbirds, thrushes, pigeons and, in my case, regrettably, exterminating my doves; the common lark swooping over the corn and seizing insects; the jay and magpie extinguishing the lives of small birds such as sparrows, chaffinches, greenfinches and even young partridges and pheasants. At the top of that hierarchy is man. 
 In ''Oliver Twist''I am trying to widen Labour Members' knowledge, if not their understanding—Charles Dickens says: 
''There is a passion for hunting something deeply implanted in the human breast.''
 I do not believe that the Bill will alter that in any way. 
 I understand those who oppose hunting and the killing of any animal at any time and I sympathise with what they say because I believe that it is an honourable position, although not one with which I agree. However, those people and anyone who supports a partial ban on hunting must understand that the balance of the countryside, to which we again refer in amendment No. 20, will change if hunting is banned. That applies not only to the balance of animal life. 
 Paragraph 4.25 of the Burns report refers to cultural matters and the cultural importance of the countryside. I know a little about that. Before I was elected to this place, I submitted a paper to the Burns inquiry on the relationship between great British art and hunting. I recommend that all hon. Members pay a visit to the sporting art exhibition at a leading London auction house, which will back up what I am saying. The importance of literature is also reflected in the way of life. All those elements were submitted and are part of the utility of hunting, as I shall demonstrate shortly.

George Stevenson: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have to postpone his demonstration of that.
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.